Glyphosate and trees

[ScottF]

Could the answer just be better silviculture? Perhaps if people didn't specify a heavy sward of ryegrass mix to be sown under where trees are to be planted (as per the roadside example) we wouldn't need to spray. I worked with some french contractors some years ago and they densely sowed mustard under new planting next to a road. It fixed nitrogen in the crappy soil and didn't seem to check the trees.

 

I hate to sound like a luddite (for I know that nostalgia isn't what it used to be), but people seemed to manage forests rather well before Monsanto got out of Agent Orange and into Roundup. Hand or machine screefing, nurse planting, mineral mulching etc etc- there are alternatives. Let's use our heads and challenge received specifications.

[D Mc]

I think the largest cost in a successful change over in our practices may not be dollars or pounds but the brain power involved and the willingness to accept the change. We have examples before us showing how things can work and have been working for thousands of years.

 

I think a couple of areas that need reexamination are our expectations on survival rate from the seed. Of the hundreds and thousands of viable seed produced in forest situations, less than 1% may succeed; yet we expect 80 to 90% success ratio from our plantings. Trees' survivability depends on their strength to withstand and face attacks on many forms with roots that can't run away. So with a high germination rate without regards to natural selection we are removing one of the tree's abilities to improve itself, through natural selection.

 

Another area of concern is monocultures. Monocultures are manmade, it is something you will rarely see naturally. Hundreds of thousands of weed-free acres with one species growing has never occurred naturally. When I think of healthy, I think of Grandma's garden. Stuffed full of a wide variety of edible and floral vegetation, ornamentals all living and supporting each other with the modest energies of an old woman. I look around in naturally wooded situations and I see a cohesive unit working together. This makes more sense to me. What one is using up, another is replenishing. We need to figure out how to work this natural diversity into our horticultural and silvicultural practices. Maybe better stated: we need to relearn how...

 

Dave

[David oakman]

Four years ago i planted a long shelter belt 3500 trees and shrubs. the first year i beat up 1% the next three years i lost none. they were all sprayed with roundup for three years in anyones book that is good. the fourth year i did not spray and the whole area is over run with thistles. I am going to cut some rows out each year to keep this in check.

[David oakman]

One of the men on the estate retires this year and he told me when he started work here when he was 15 there were 4 woodmen and in the spring and summer he used to help them hand weeding all the new plantings. with the cost of labour today try paying them wages when a few days out on the quad and its done. As for wildlife corridors we have 6 metre margins beaside ditches and hedges, then mr farmer goes round and cuts the grass beside his crops!

[Arob]

I think the largest cost in a successful change over in our practices may not be dollars or pounds but the brain power involved and the willingness to accept the change. We have examples before us showing how things can work and have been working for thousands of years.

 

I think a couple of areas that need reexamination are our expectations on survival rate from the seed. Of the hundreds and thousands of viable seed produced in forest situations, less than 1% may succeed; yet we expect 80 to 90% success ratio from our plantings. Trees' survivability depends on their strength to withstand and face attacks on many forms with roots that can't run away. So with a high germination rate without regards to natural selection we are removing one of the tree's abilities to improve itself, through natural selection.

 

Another area of concern is monocultures. Monocultures are manmade, it is something you will rarely see naturally. Hundreds of thousands of weed-free acres with one species growing has never occurred naturally. When I think of healthy, I think of Grandma's garden. Stuffed full of a wide variety of edible and floral vegetation, ornamentals all living and supporting each other with the modest energies of an old woman. I look around in naturally wooded situations and I see a cohesive unit working together. This makes more sense to me. What one is using up, another is replenishing. We need to figure out how to work this natural diversity into our horticultural and silvicultural practices. Maybe better stated: we need to relearn how...

 

Dave

 

This is the challenge though Dave, in all aspects of life we've pushed to maximise yields (and ignore the side effects!). Much of this is connected to warfare, the FC was created as a direct response to the consequences of WWI, the 'green revolution' in agriculture which has encouraged increased mechanisation and the chemical alternative was a direct response to the effects of WWII.

 

In economic terms these economies of scale make perfect sense, but then there's the cost... in recent years though we've seen market differentiation bucking this over-simplified economic model. We now accept people are willing to pay a little extra, or retailers are willing to specify, to offset some of these costs, hence B&Q's backing of FSC timber etc, and the successes of farmers markets, fairtrade products etc.

 

This seems to provide a more workable alternative than trying to 'offset' as it's integrated into the business rather than 'bolted on' which seems an afterthought.

 

But as farmers markets have proved you need to be able to provide a superior quality product to a local market, typically not so easy in this industry, but on small woodland projects close-ish to people, or destinations perhaps, is it possible to integrate a high profit value adding production element? Perhaps it needs to be connected to a farm which has a farm shop and the two could cross-pollinate?

 

I like A De J Hart's Forest Gardening but maybe it's a bit too extreme to realise, I wonder if we could see any simpler agroforestry systems taking off to meet niche markets? (Having had grant aided grubbing up of orchards a decade or two back perhaps we can expect a reversal of that policy sooner than later?)

 

I remember hearing someone saying that the last century saw the transition from man being surrounded by nature to nature being surrounded by man, this will surely necessitate a change in psychological perspective, perhaps we'll be less in fear and value nature more.

[Nomad]

Getting back on thread, "Glyphosate and trees" at normal recommended application rates Glyphosate appears to not really bother woody plants such as trees, Ivy and brambles for example, however it will act as a growth inhibitor. Easy to test just go out and give some Bramble a good dose and monitor it over a couple of months.

 

Off thread a bit, a big concern has got to be the subsidies given to farmers for drilling a crop leaving it a month or so and spraying it off just to re-sow another. What is that all about?

 

Another really frightening aspect is the amount put down each and every year by our local authorities with road and footpath weedspraying but perhaps that's for another thread.

 

Interesting discussion everyone, shame there's no immediate answers but heh looking on the bright side the way things are going perhaps in 5 years time there will be huge gangs of us hand weeding for a bowl of rice a day

[Nomad]

Posted by Arob-(Having had grant aided grubbing up of orchards a decade or two back perhaps we can expect a reversal of that policy sooner than later?)

 

I believe the reversal of that policy is upon us? I don't know why we are not seeing orchards being planted is it landowners slow on the uptake or are the agricultural grants still messed up and years behind like trying to get a grant for turning land over to "bio-mass"?

 

Perhaps the subject for another thread:001_smile:

[Albedo]

A piece of anecdotal evidence, i.e no real proof but perhaps interesting.

 

The debate has moved on to the discussion of alternatives. Fair enough for those of you who have large scale applications to worry about, I understand that you silviculturists have a different or bigger problem and will leave you to discuss it unmolested by the ‘patronising extremist’. However I’m a domestic client, back garden arborist so I might have an easier choice to make.

 

Years ago, in France I was clearing a windblown oak for a farmer. During a smoko break I was counting the rings to get an idea of how old the tree had been. I noticed that a few years back from the latest growth ring there were a series of rings all about 1mm apart rather than say 5-8mm apart like all the rest.

 

I asked the farmer if there had been a long drought or some climatic reason or any other ideas i.e. attack of P & D etc for this period of reduced growth. He said that all weather and climate had been normal. He didn’t know about P & D but he knew that roundup had been used on the field to control weeds for the crop he was growing, and that it corresponded with the period of reduced growth rings.

 

I believe that the roundup may have killed off the trees mycchorizal root fungi. This would explain the reduced growth. You could see from later years that the tree and its mycchorizae recovered.

 

The story didn’t have a happy ending though as I was there to chop it up. I don’t know why it blew over, but during the 8 years or so that the reduced growth rings were present, the tree may have been weakened enough to allow secondary organisms to attack. Or maybe it was just, its time.

 

As I say, although this is not proof of anything, it’s enough (along with all the other scientific evidence) for me to exercise caution in the use of chemicals around the root zone of trees.

 

There’s a school of thought amongst scientists and concerned individuals who want to invoke what they call the ‘Precautionary Principal’.

 

Scientists got fed up with the onus of proof being placed on them by companies like Monsanto and by Government departments like DEFRA. I.e. we say this product is safe and will allow it to be used until you prove otherwise. DEFRA and other relevant Gov’t departments have to take industry interests, jobs etc into account and therefore cannot act solely in the interests of the public, or end user. They are involved in a complex and difficult balancing act, whereas I as an individual am not.

 

Environmental scientists want to put the onus of proof where it belongs, with the manufacturer. So you can’t market a product until you (the manufacturer) prove it is safe.

 

You only have to look at Monsanto’s’ involvement in GM to see that the onus of proof is still on us and not them. (I’m not against all GM technology by the way. I’m on the fence awaiting evidence, but I am against Monsanto’s roundup resistant crop technology and marketing and legal actions etc, but that’s another issue)

 

So I personally use the ‘Precautionary Principal’ in my use of chemicals around the root zone of trees. I.e. In the absence of conclusive accepted proof, one way or the other, or in the absence of universal agreement, there is enough evidence for me to choose not to use pesticides / herbicides in little back garden situations.

 

I thought I might also post this link to what seems to be a reasonably balanced article on Glyphosate. It seems there is a small element of choice based on the type of surfactant used by Monsanto as it has a version of its product with a less environmentally destructive surfactant than the one used in the mark 1 version.

 

http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/Actives/glyphosa.htm

[Tom Joye]

So I personally use the ‘Precautionary Principal’ in my use of chemicals around the root zone of trees. I.e. In the absence of conclusive accepted proof, one way or the other, or in the absence of universal agreement, there is enough evidence for me to choose not to use pesticides / herbicides in little back garden situations.

 

 

Hi all,

 

didn't check the forum for some time and wow... didn't know my post would go on and live its own life like this

 

I've heard a lot of interesting thoughts, but I agree with Paul, I'm a big fan of the Precautionary principal. I NEVER use any pesticides/herbicides, not in the root zone of trees, nor anywhere else. As Paul, I'm not working in woodlands, but in gardens and there, IMO, it is perfectly possible to avoid them. I never sprayed a tree after planting, no matter which size and most of them survived. Even this meant I had to crawl on my knees with a sickle all day, it worked.

 

Back here in Belgium, it is forbidden for public services to use any pesticides or herbicides, including roundup. Not in their plantations, not on any hard surface, nowhere (I have to say some minor exceptions are possible, but this is negligible). All the public services were shouting this was impossible, but in the meanwhile, the city of Ghent, where I live (3rd city of Belgium, 240.000 inhabitants) has reduced its use of pesticides/herbicides to only 4 kg active ingredient per year! So it is possible, we only have to tolerate a little bit more weeds in the city and city planners are designing and thinking in a whole different way than before. And that's what we all have to do.

 

To end, just think about the following situation: a street tree where weed control on the pavement is carried out with roundup, twice a year. All the runoff goes to the planting pit and it may take 20 years, but byebye big London plane. This is a real situation, the trees I think about are gone and they won't come back.

 

Thanks for the great thread and the tonnes of info (alltough it took me some time)

Tom

[SMc]

... So it is possible, we only have to tolerate a little bit more weeds in the city and city planners are designing and thinking in a whole different way than before. And that's what we all have to do.

 

Thank you for the testimonial, Tom. I believe there are many of us out there convinced that our current practices are wrong and yet overwhelmed by the prospect of change. It is very easy to throw up our hands and say "but what can I do?" It is good to know there are living examples, on larger scales, to demonstrate that this can be done. We just need to do it.

 

Sylvia